LOUIS LOPEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Louis Lopez appealed his convictions for aggravated assault, burglary with assault, attempted felony murder, and shooting a deadly missile, challenging the denial of a juror challenge for cause and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to an out-of-court identification. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no error on either ground.
The trial court properly denied the challenge for cause because the juror's statement about the reasonable doubt burden did not evidence any bias or prejudice. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on failure to object to an out-of-court identification are not cognizable on direct appeal and must be raised in a separate proceeding.
[1] A juror should be dismissed for cause when there is reasonable doubt as to their impartiality, and the test is whether the juror can lay aside bias and render a verdict s…
[2] Whether a challenged juror's responses meet the test for impartiality is a mixed question of law and fact to be resolved by the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A juror should be dismissed for cause where there is reasonable doubt as to his or her impartiality.... The applicable test is whether a juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render a verdict solely on the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given by the court.”
Establishes the legal standard for juror challenges for cause that the trial court properly applied.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLouis Lopez was convicted of aggravated assault, burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery, two counts of attempted felony murder, and shooting a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Out-Of-Court Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
Louis Lopez appeals his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault, burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery, two counts of attempted felony murder, and shooting a deadly missile at a vehicle. He raises two claims of error as to his conviction, one as to the denial of a juror challenge for cause and the other as to his attorney’s ineffective assistance in failing to object to an out-of-court identification. We find no error on either issue.
First, appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying a challenge for cause to one of the jurors. Specifically, the juror expressed concern that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden would make it harder to find the appellant guilty or not guilty. This statement does not show bias for or against the defense. As we said in Juede v. State, 887 So.2d 1114, 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008),
A juror should be dismissed for cause where there is reasonable doubt as to his or her impartiality.... The applicable test is whether a juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render a verdict solely on the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given by the court.... Whether a challenged juror’s responses meet the ... test is a mixed question of law and fact to be resolved by the trial court.
(citations omitted). We conclude that the court properly denied the challenge because the juror did not evidence any bias.
Second, appellant also claims ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of the record for failure of his attorney to object to an unnecessarily suggestive out-of-court identification of appellant. Ineffective assistance of counsel arguments are not cognizable on direct appeal generally. McKinney v. State, 579 So.2d 80, 82 (Fla. 1991). We find that the general rule is applicable here.
Affirmed,. 1
MAY, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Boris McKINNEY v. State, 579 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1991)
- Peterson Paul v. State, 958 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Paul v. State, 59 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)